or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Appeals court reverses ban on Samsung Galaxy Nexus in Apple patent dispute
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Appeals court reverses ban on Samsung Galaxy Nexus in Apple patent dispute

post #1 of 142
Thread Starter 
A U.S. appeals court on Thursday overturned a ruling that barred sales of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, allowing the device to go back on sale.

Apple initially won the injunction against the Galaxy Nexus in June when it was awarded by Judge Lucy Koh in California. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Thursday that the district court in California "abused its discretion" when it barred sales of the Galaxy Nexus.

"At best, the district court's finding indicate that some consumers who buy the iPhone 4S like Siri because, among other things, its search results are comprehensive," the court said in its ruling. "That does not sufficiently suggest, however, that consumers would buy the Galaxy Nexus because of its improved comprehensiveness in search."

The appeals court that it is irrelevant how much sales of the Galaxy Nexus may harm Apple, because the court found there is not enough evidence "showing that the harm flows from Samsung' alleged infringement." As a result, the appeals court ruled that the district court "abused its discretion in determining that the irreparable harm factor counsels in favor of entering an injunction."

Galaxy Nexus


In her initial ruling, Judge Koh cited U.S Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 regarding Siri voice commands and unified search functionality first levied against the Google and Samsung flagship handset by Apple in February.

"Apple has articulated a plausible theory of irreparable harm" due to "long-term loss of market share and losses of downstream sales," Judge Koh said.

The Galaxy Nexus is Google's flagship Android handset and was created in cooperation with Samsung. The device has since been supplanted by newer Android-based products, including Samsung's own Galaxy S III.
post #2 of 142

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/11/appeals-court-overturns-ban-on-samsung-galaxy-nexus/

http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/10/11/apples-earned-injunction-on-samsung-galaxy-nexus-reversed-by-appeals-court/

 

Quote:
Samsung argued, somewhat humiliatingly, that the sales of the Galaxy Nexus were so poor that they didn’t pose a threat to Apple’s iPhone and that the unified search feature was not essential to the success of its device. The appeals court apparently agrees.

 

 

LMAO

 

Alright, Samsung can have their sad-assed device back on the shelf. No one's really buying it anyway. 

 

 

 

post #3 of 142
No Surprise There... It should never have been banned in the first place.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #4 of 142
Because people want that. :-/
post #5 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

LMAO

(truncated)

 

 

Quote:
The appeals court that it is irrelevant how much sales of the Galaxy Nexus may harm Apple, because the court found there is not enough evidence "showing that the harm flows from Samsung' alleged infringement."

 

 

Keep laughing. Your point is irrelevant if you even bothered to read. And yet again a lack of forest through the trees. This significantly weakens Apple's ability to leverage this patent against other Android devices on the same premise. Nevermind the Galaxy Nexus is being replaced in a few weeks anyway. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #6 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

No Surprise There... It should never have been banned in the first place.

 

 

.....because no one does wrong except for Apple. :-/

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #7 of 142

... and Judge Koh. 1smile.gif

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

 

 

.....because no one does wrong except for Apple. :-/

 

.. because he was implying that no one except Apple does wrong by saying that the ban never should have been placed?  

 

There is some strong ganja being smoked up in this joint

post #9 of 142
So the injunction was granted because a) the product was found to infringe, and b) the infringing product may have decreased Apple's sales

The verdict was overturned because the infringement itself (a) did not necessarily produce a product that was more likely to decrease Apple's sales than a similar non-infringing product (b).

So what alternative measures are being taken due to the infringement instead? There must surely still be repercussions for Samsung. Has it been ascertained whether they wilfully infringed on the patent or not, and if Samsung have profited from the sales, why does it matter how Apple's sales were affected?
post #10 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


... and NEVER have I said that, so please stop acting like some overly-defensive troll.

 

Not overly-defensive, just reading between the lines and filling in the blanks.

 

You're acting like I've never read your long history of drive-by, one-sided comments.

 

Sorry if I'm putting (accurate) words in your mouth.


Edited by Dickprinter - 10/11/12 at 10:33am

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #11 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


... and NEVER have I said that, so please stop acting like some overly-defensive troll.

Pot. Kettle. Black. 

post #12 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post

So the injunction was granted because a) the product was found to infringe, and b) the infringing product may have decreased Apple's sales
The verdict was overturned because the infringement itself (a) did not necessarily produce a product that was more likely to decrease Apple's sales than a similar non-infringing product (b).
So what alternative measures are being taken due to the infringement instead? There must surely still be repercussions for Samsung. Has it been ascertained whether they wilfully infringed on the patent or not, and if Samsung have profited from the sales, why does it matter how Apple's sales were affected?

I think this this was in conjunction with a preliminary ruling. The case itself has not yet been tried.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think this this was in conjunction with a preliminary ruling. The case itself has not yet been tried.

That's correct, but it still sets a precedent. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #14 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think this this was in conjunction with a preliminary ruling. The case itself has not yet been tried.

Thanks. So we wait and see.

It seems to me like a ban on future (or current) sales would be less unpredictable and potentially damaging to Samsung than a cut of all preceding profits, though.
post #15 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

That's correct, but it still sets a precedent. 

How's that? 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How's that? 

From the court:

 

 

Quote:
"To establish a sufficiently strong causal nexus, Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the ’604 patent — not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search"

 

Swap Galaxy Nexus with x Android device, and Apple's lost a reason to ask for an injunction (separate from the patent fight itself). Although allegedly Android's worked around this now or something. 

 

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1507.pdf

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #17 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post

So the injunction was granted because a) the product was found to infringe, and b) the infringing product may have decreased Apple's sales
The verdict was overturned because the infringement itself (a) did not necessarily produce a product that was more likely to decrease Apple's sales than a similar non-infringing product (b).
So what alternative measures are being taken due to the infringement instead? There must surely still be repercussions for Samsung. Has it been ascertained whether they wilfully infringed on the patent or not, and if Samsung have profited from the sales, why does it matter how Apple's sales were affected?

There's a lot of misunderstanding of these issues.

Injunctions on the sale of product are not meant to be routine. They should only be used in a preliminary hearing (which is what this was) when the court is convinced that:
1.The plaintiff can prove that infringement has occurred
2. The plaintiff can show that damages occurred due to the infringement.
and
3. The plaintiff can show that a simple fine or financial penalty can not rectify the damage. (i.e., that the infringement will cause irreparable harm if not stopped)

If the plaintiff fails to prove any one of the 3 items, then there should not be an injunction.

In this case, the appeals court said that Apple failed to prove #2 - and Samsung's admission that no one was buying the product supports that. The decision does not in any way affect the matter of whether infringement occurred or whether Apple might actually win damages later.

So, to answer your question, the repercussions for Samsung will be at the full trial. Apple will have a chance to prove infringement and, if they do, ask for damages.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #18 of 142
If there is no harm from the Samsung products how come AAPL stock dropped so much in reaction the lifting of the sales ban?
post #19 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


There's a lot of misunderstanding of these issues.
Injunctions on the sale of product are not meant to be routine. They should only be used in a preliminary hearing (which is what this was) when the court is convinced that:
1.The plaintiff can prove that infringement has occurred
2. The plaintiff can show that damages occurred due to the infringement.
and
3. The plaintiff can show that a simple fine or financial penalty can not rectify the damage. (i.e., that the infringement will cause irreparable harm if not stopped)
If the plaintiff fails to prove any one of the 3 items, then there should not be an injunction.
In this case, the appeals court said that Apple failed to prove #2 - and Samsung's admission that no one was buying the product supports that. The decision does not in any way affect the matter of whether infringement occurred or whether Apple might actually win damages later.
So, to answer your question, the repercussions for Samsung will be at the full trial. Apple will have a chance to prove infringement and, if they do, ask for damages.

Collectively true, but that's not why the court over turned it. Apple couldn't prove and the court didn't believe people were buying the product because of a feature related to the patent, therefore damages can't be proven. Samsung could have said they sold 10 million of them, it wouldn't matter.

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #20 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

If there is no harm from the Samsung products how come AAPL stock dropped so much in reaction the lifting of the sales ban?

 

Recent drop in AAPL has been mainly due to the concerns of 'yield' rate on key iOS devices, including the iPad mini and iPhone 5 shell.

post #21 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

No Surprise There... It should never have been banned in the first place.

Cheap, nasty, rubbish should always be banned. ;-)
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #22 of 142
The USA exists by its free market system. And why was my post deleted. Because I mentioned USA and the article is about the US judicial ruling?
Edited by iSheldon - 10/11/12 at 11:29am
post #23 of 142

Great should not have been banned to begin with. I love my Galaxy Nexus!!!

 

Im glad google has figured out a way to get pass, slide to unlock, pinch to zoom, and universal search on a mobile device, rubber banding on android. 

 

I have no idea if double tap, and hyperlink whatever link system apple has "patented" has been worked through yet. 

 

I hate software patents. 

post #24 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post


Cheap, nasty, rubbish should always be banned. ;-)

Good thing the Galaxy Nexus is a high quality product. 

post #25 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post

So the injunction was granted because a) the product was found to infringe, and b) the infringing product may have decreased Apple's sales
The verdict was overturned because the infringement itself (a) did not necessarily produce a product that was more likely to decrease Apple's sales than a similar non-infringing product (b).
So what alternative measures are being taken due to the infringement instead? There must surely still be repercussions for Samsung. Has it been ascertained whether they wilfully infringed on the patent or not, and if Samsung have profited from the sales, why does it matter how Apple's sales were affected?

Since when is a billion dollars chopped liver?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #26 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

... and NEVER have I said that, so please stop acting like some overly-defensive troll.

? ? ?

Your entire life on these forums revolves around attempting to prove that, and I'm utterly astonished that you could even attempt to claim otherwise.

Or was your posting history done by your other personality?

Roses are red
Apple makes you blue
You're a schizophrenic

And so are you...
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #27 of 142
First of many reversals to occur, based on how bad US patent laws are and not just by Apple. In the last 5 years, the number of lawsuits initiated by "patent trolls" who bought up patents, but make no products and have a single intent to just sue for money has doubled and will triple if patent laws aren't better governed... soon.
post #28 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

Good thing the Galaxy Nexus is a high quality product. 

I have a friend at work who has one.

He's a typical teenager, who couldn't make up his own mind if he tried because he's always too busy 'rebelling' by doing the opposite of what people say. He'd jump in front of traffic if you told him not to, and he bought this thing because he 'hates Apple' (despite admitting that he reckons their gear is superb).

Did you read that bit?

He bought a product, not because I thinks the product is great, but because he hates the competition.

Anyway, I've had the chance to use it a lot and, with an utterly open-mind, I can honestly say it's cheap nasty rubbish, and is a strong reinforcement for the old 'Ford and Ferrari' argument.
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #29 of 142
I'm sorry, but this reeks of some lobbyist palms having been greased by Samsung.
post #30 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


There's a lot of misunderstanding of these issues.
Injunctions on the sale of product are not meant to be routine. They should only be used in a preliminary hearing (which is what this was) when the court is convinced that:
1.The plaintiff can prove that infringement has occurred
2. The plaintiff can show that damages occurred due to the infringement.
and
3. The plaintiff can show that a simple fine or financial penalty can not rectify the damage. (i.e., that the infringement will cause irreparable harm if not stopped)
If the plaintiff fails to prove any one of the 3 items, then there should not be an injunction.
In this case, the appeals court said that Apple failed to prove #2 - and Samsung's admission that no one was buying the product supports that. The decision does not in any way affect the matter of whether infringement occurred or whether Apple might actually win damages later.
So, to answer your question, the repercussions for Samsung will be at the full trial. Apple will have a chance to prove infringement and, if they do, ask for damages.

JR, I think #1 is close but not entirely accurate. At this stage Judge Koh would not be ruling that infringement has occurred. In a preliminary finding the injunction ruling would only require that it's likely Apple's patent is both valid and infringed, among some other requirements. Judge Koh never ruled that Samsung was infringing on Apple's IP in the case of the Nexus. That would come later during the trial phase.


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/11/12 at 12:07pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

 
I have a friend at work who has one.
He's a typical teenager, who couldn't make up his own mind if he tried because he's always too busy 'rebelling' by doing the opposite of what people say. He'd jump in front of traffic if you told him not to, and he bought this thing because he 'hates Apple' (despite admitting that he reckons their gear is superb).
Did you read that bit?
He bought a product, not because I thinks the product is great, but because he hates the competition.
Anyway, I've had the chance to use it a lot and, with an utterly open-mind, I can honestly say it's cheap nasty rubbish, and is a strong reinforcement for the old 'Ford and Ferrari' argument.

Your opinion, I find the software to be much more advance than ios 6, love the on screen buttons, its large but not too large, curved screen is awesome. Its not cheap. Every android phone is cheap in your eyes. If its not an iphone, its cheap in your mind. 

post #32 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

Your opinion, I find the software to be much more advance than ios 6, love the on screen buttons, its large but not too large, curved screen is awesome. Its not cheap. Every android phone is cheap in your eyes. If its not an iphone, its cheap in your mind. 

My opinion?

Thanks for clearing that up, Captain Obvious.

Did I give it away when I used the expression 'I can honestly say'?

Why is you offering your opposing opinion any different from what I did?
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #33 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

I find the software to be much more advance than ios 6

Maybe you just have low standards?
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #34 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post


My opinion?
Thanks for clearing that up, Captain Obvious.
Did I give it away when I used the expression 'I can honestly say'?
Why is you offering your opposing opinion any different from what I did?

You are clearly delusional when it comes to apple products. You would sacrifice animals to steve jobs, if that was asked of you. I love Apple products, I own an ipad 3 and a macbook, but I know good products when I see them. Galaxy nexus is a dam good product, there are many non apple good products out there. Just not for you. 

post #35 of 142
Originally Posted by xuselppa View Post
First of many reversals to occur, based on how bad US patent laws are and not just by Apple. In the last 5 years, the number of lawsuits initiated by "patent trolls" who bought up patents, but make no products and have a single intent to just sue for money has doubled and will triple if patent laws aren't better governed... soon.

 

I get it now. Slapppy's spores were a long-term thing. He was here, he sowed the seeds, and they hibernated for a few years before popping up in many different forms.


Either that or you're just LizSanford back again.


Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post
Every android phone is cheap in your eyes. If its not an iphone, its cheap in your mind. 

 

And in the minds of the telecoms who sell the things and who would know what is cheaper. Or do you contest that? 

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #36 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post


Maybe you just have low standards?

I love google now, google products, mail, calender, maps, voice, talk. multitasking is way better, notifications is way better, I get to pick my default apps (Biggest gripe with ios), basically I make my phone what I want it to be. ios has the quality apps lead, Apps look better on ios, but android has the same apps just not good looking. But I tried to use an iphone for 2 months, and while there are many things I love about it, I cant give up what android offers for pretty colors, and after android 4.1 and jelly bean, I can't go back. Now when it comes to tablets ipad is where its at, android tablets lack apps and they are but ugly and no functionality and freedom can make up for that. Nexus 7 was a step in the right direction but its not there yet. But when it comes to phones ios is a joke compared to android. To me. I only use macs for desktop and laptops. But I got a samsung series 9. about 4-5 months ago and that thing is a sexy beast. I can't wait for the lumia 920, the hardware looks amazing, and windows 8 might be fun. we will see. 

 

Unlike you I don't worship Apple products. (All Hail Apple). I use the ones that please me, but plenty companies have services that are as good and sometimes better than apple. 

post #37 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

You are clearly delusional when it comes to apple products. You would sacrifice animals to steve jobs, if that was asked of you. I love Apple products, I own an ipad 3 and a macbook, but I know good products when I see them. Galaxy nexus is a dam good product, there are many non apple good products out there. Just not for you. 

How am I clearly delusional?

How do you know me well enough to back up these statements of 'sacrificing an animal to Steve Jobs' and 'every Android phone is cheap in your eyes'?

If so, why was I the previous owner of a SII?

Are you attempting to dismiss my very valid arguments by trying to make me out as being like yourself?
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #38 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I get it now. Slapppy's spores were a long-term thing. He was here, he sowed the seeds, and they hibernated for a few years before popping up in many different forms.


Either that or you're just LizSanford back again.

 

And in the minds of the telecoms who sell the things and who would know what is cheaper. Or do you contest that? 

I don't buy products from telecoms, got my gnex unlocked from google. Apple has the highest profit margin in the industry. But if you go by parts and manufacturing cost, sites like ifix it have made it clear that high end android phones like SGSIII and the HTC one x cost about the same as the iphone. 

 

Apple has the ability to sell their products at a higher cost and rightly so, the demand is higher. But high end android cost cost just as much, they just can't sell them at the cost that apple does, they don't have the demand. 

post #39 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post


How am I clearly delusional?
How do you know me well enough to back up these statements of 'sacrificing an animal to Steve Jobs' and 'every Android phone is cheap in your eyes'?
If so, why was I the previous owner of a SII?
Are you attempting to dismiss my very valid arguments by trying to make me out as being like yourself?

so was the GSII cheap and horrible as well?

post #40 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

I cant give up what android offers for pretty colors

I think you and Nokia may not see eye to eye on this point...
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Appeals court reverses ban on Samsung Galaxy Nexus in Apple patent dispute
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Appeals court reverses ban on Samsung Galaxy Nexus in Apple patent dispute